Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
> available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
I don't think we're disagreeing on this point.
However, I think that you are imagining that people are distributing
kghostscript executables and not distributing Qt.
That's certainly not what Debian would do, if Debian included kghostscript
in "main".
> > > > > The next sentence reads:
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
> > > > > not include anything that is normally distributed (in either
> > > > > source or binary form) with the major components (compiler,
> > > > > kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable
> > > > > runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so you are aware of the part of the GPL which lets the proprietary
> > > > libc be used.
> > > >
> > > > > This sentence can easily be read to support the dynamic/static
> > > > distinction.
> > > >
> > > > Eh? You can link the proprietary libc statically and this special
> > > > exception would still be just as applicable.
> > >
> > > No, it would not, b/c then you would actually be distributing the
> > > executable proprietary libc, and the next clause kicks in (the
> > > exception ("unless . . .") to the special exception) to require the
> > > source code to be distributed for the libc part as well.
> >
> > Yes, you would be distributing the proprietary libc. But that's legal
> > if (1) the libc would also be distributed with a major component of the
> > operating system, and (2) that major component of the operating system
> > would not accompany the GPLed executable.
>
> Right, but if it's statically linked by definition it does accompany the
> executable.
"it" meaning the GPLed program?
If so, why do you use the phrase "accompany the executable"? Aren't you
talking about the executable of the GPLed program?
What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
this point?
If "it" doesn't mean the GPLed program, what is it that you say would
be statically linked?
> > There's nothing in that exception which says that libc can't accompany
> > the GPLed executable.
>
> Of course it can, but then you have to include the source code.
Sure -- you not only have to include the source code, but you have to
make sure it's distributed under GPL terms... but then we wouldn't be
talking about that proprietary libc.
> > The requirement is that the GPLed executable
> > can't be accompanied by the major component of the operating system
> > which includes the cannonical copy of libc.
> >
> > Stated even more informally, that exception says: you can use a
> > proprietary libc if everyone already has it, but then the the OS vendor
> > (who stuck everyone with this proprietary libc) can't distribute the
> > GPLed program.
>
> I don't see any reference to OS vendor, whether explicit or implicit,
> in the language of Section 3 of the GPL. The only distinction on the
> system component exception is whether the system component accompanies
> the executable or not: if not, you are excused from including the
> source code for that component, if it does, you are not excused
It seems to me that you'd call someone distributing major components of
a proprietary OS an OS vendor. I'm sure you could construct examples
which are exceptions to that rule. But I made it very clear that I was
talking informally -- I was talking about the usual case, not trying to
be so general that I was covering all potential issues.
--
Raul
Reply to: